Why mix up all the numbers, but not numbers 9, 5 and 6?

But you get rusty in moist environments; when you urinate you slowly rot away your urethra.

ERASED is about a guy reliving his life as a young school kid, with awkward moments around romantic feelings. While I do think it kind of fits the story, I think it does not go well with the requirements.

With this classy response of his it’s almost better for his perceived character than when he didn’t say it.

But I’m allergic to mittens.

No action whatsoever is being done purely for someone else’s sake.

Also not a fan to say the least.

No need to attack me like that when I’m just sharing my viewpoint.

I’m not that outspoken about whether it is fair or not to train on publicly visible data. As that is like having a set of brains look at the same data, but on steroids.

I do feel, however, that large companies making money off that inspiration input seems skewed. But that comes down to the question, can you look at public work and then ask for money for the work you create yourself afterwards. As you surely build on inspiration.

Well, in many other systems you have an overarching ruling layer that sets laws and is able to enforce them from a top level.

That is precisely the reason why those systems can be relatively stable. As you just have a very large group of people following the same set of rules.

In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people’s art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it “feels” more original.

I’d argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.

Which does not mean that we can’t disapprove of literal copies of other people’s work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it’s more or less a complexity scale.

I like the idea of anarchism, but I see it as more of an ideal world view than an actual stable reality.

To support this, every group member of every group must almost unanimously support the concept. When resources or safety in an area become scarce, it’s easy for some groups to evolve back into another power structure to take care of their own people.

It’s really difficult for me to imagine everybody on this planet getting along with this. But I’m certainly interested in other viewpoints.

There have been studies that claim there is a max on what money can buy you in terms of happiness. Before it was said to be 70k (of course depends on the country), now it might be 500k.

Well, not that I approve of the practice, but you could find site logins that the email is used in, breaches that it’s been in (potentially finding (old) passwords).

With that info, if not for identity theft directly, can be used for fishing and profiling.

I’m quickly going to create an AI named “No Gen”.

Maybe he is over a thousand years old, don’t you see the wrinkles?

This is a brilliant description; the feeling OP has is probably on a way more abstract level than most of the comments here are thinking of.

If you have a whiteboard marker, you can draw over it and then erase it. Works wonders.

Well it’s mostly that at least a certain group with disabilities has access to a way out when life is too harsh. It is to limit unneeded suffering. A respectful way to end one’s life should be available to everyone, but that is a hard pill to swallow for many neurotypical / religious people. So it gets limited to a certain group, and then they use that compromise as an argument…

You don’t decide whether you are born, at least let us have more control over our own death. In a progression of our human civilization, this should count for everyone.

Framing this in a bad way is exactly what some conservative politicians and media want.

E

S